Nobody can win in CK3. The game doesn't even keep scores.

[Maxar]

(posted from a comment in "What we want from Crusader Kings 3?")

I think one of the biggest problems with this game is the lack of both a win condition and a score system. Currently, nobody can "win" in CK3. There is no score system to speak of between all of the nations in the world, and the end screen just says "the end" with a little scrolling gallery of the last few ancestors of your lineage. This makes the game feel kind of pointless. I really wish the devs or modders would make a scoring system or something so there is some basis of competition between all the nations.

EDIT: If anybody knows of a mod that adds a scoring system for this game, please let me know.

EDIT2: I shouldn't have said "there's no score system" because in a way the game is keeping track of scores in the form of various stats like dynastic and personal prestige, fame, wealth and others; the game just isn't comparing your stats to other peoples and dynasties in a way that makes it feel like it matters.

[Seraphiel]

I agree, I was quite surprised that it doesn't have one coming from Stellaris (which does have it).

[The Former]

My suggestion would be to compare the total dynastic renown of everyone at the end of the game. I'm kind of surprised they didn't do that. As it stands though, it's very much a sandbox game, which means each player decides what winning looks like.

[.Esík]

There is score system for countries. If you have best court you are probably best because you need resources to be best.

[Maxar]

Originally posted by Lockfågel, Paradoxriddaren:

My suggestion would be to compare the total dynastic renown of everyone at the end of the game. I'm kind of surprised they didn't do that. As it stands though, it's very much a sandbox game, which means each player decides what winning looks like.

Right, I suppose I shouldn't have said "there's no score system" because in a way the game is keeping track of scores in the form of various stats like dynastic and personal prestige, fame, wealth and others; the game just isn't comparing your stats to other peoples and dynasties in a way that makes it feel like it matters.

[The Former]

Originally posted by Maxar:

Originally posted by Lockfågel, Paradoxriddaren:

My suggestion would be to compare the total dynastic renown of everyone at the end of the game. I'm kind of surprised they didn't do that. As it stands though, it's very much a sandbox game, which means each player decides what winning looks like.

Right, I suppose I shouldn't have said "there's no score system" because in a way the game is keeping track of scores in the form of various stats like dynastic and personal prestige, fame, wealth and others; the game just isn't comparing your stats to other peoples and dynasties in a way that makes it feel like it matters.

Yeah. Like I said, I'm really surprised they didn't do it natively, it seems like an obvious thing to have. If I recall correctly, CK2 did it. At the end they compared your dynasty's grandeur to that of various historical dynasties (though I don't remember if they were scored according to historical deeds or ingame deeds).

Though I suppose as the last comment said, you could also compare courts. But either way it'd be nice if the game actually did the comparison for us.

[VipreRX]

Why do I hear someone standing off the side of the field at a four year old's soccer game screaming about keeping score.

I personally don't need the interface telling me I'm better than some other, imaginary, entity to enjoy the game but yeah sure no objection to it, just an extra click to ignore.

[The Former]

Originally posted by VipreRX:

Why do I hear someone standing off the side of the field at a four year old's soccer game screaming about keeping score.

I personally don't need the interface telling me I'm better than some other, imaginary, entity to enjoy the game but yeah sure no objection to it, just an extra click to ignore.

Haha! Well, I'm with you there, but a good game appeals to the broadest possible number of people, and there's no reason I can see that they couldn't stick it in as an option.

[Maxar]

Originally posted by VipreRX:

Why do I hear someone standing off the side of the field at a four year old's soccer game screaming about keeping score.

I personally don't need the interface telling me I'm better than some other, imaginary, entity to enjoy the game but yeah sure no objection to it, just an extra click to ignore.

Well obviously the feature shouldn't be annoying with regular popups like that. The feature should just be a scoreboard you can look at from time to time to see who is winning and in what stat category (most prestige, most fame, most controlled land area, wars won, battles won, technologies learned, etc)

[Kimlin]

I would like a comparison of my dynasty vs historical and in game dynasties. Comparing total renown, prestige earned, gold earned, piety earned counties acquired, gold acquired, artifacts total and by level acquired, highest court grandeur/ranking achieved and average court grandeur/ranking. It could be displayed as a sortable chart.

[Kit Fulvas]

you might want to check youtube for insperations on that, I recently watched a Paradox sponsered competition where it was like 4-5 CK3 players trying to expand in a specific time frame and got points for each Duchy, Kingdom, and Empire under their control (or house, i forgot which).

The difference between CK3 and Stellaris, is that Stellaris how it presents itself. Stellaris is kinda like Civ, you build up and just expand constantly, eventually trying to engulf all the star systems. Where as CK is about politics, building up, breaking it backdown, and building up again, its too chaotic.

Theres also how you can clearly determine a "winner" in stellaris compared to CK3. In stellaris, if all other Species are wiped out, you win. But for CK3, a County will ALWAYS have someone to represent it. Yes you can lose by not having a player heir, but its like playing a battle royale game that constently drops more players in.

I guess inspiration for a scoring system would be how many landed house members, faith/culture spread, development, a certain renown threshold? or yes, even territories.

[Flybox]

SimCity didn't keep score, either, but people still played that game.

[Kimlin]

Originally posted by JF:

Neither do Dwarf Fortress or Minecraft or Lego or many other games.

I want to play and have a good experience, not be constrained to aim toward a specific goal.

Then don’t look at it…pretty simple.

[Ten4]

Protip: A winner is you!

[Undeadbanana]

I think you're confusing the types of grand strategy games available.

Stellaris is a 4X game, CK3 is more of a RPG with strategy elements or Dynasty Simulator. They will never make a score system or win goal because the CK series is more of a simulator than 4x and they want the player's playstyle to be influenced by their own goals.

If CK3 is a game that you think needs major changes for you to like it, I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this but you might not be it's target demographic.

[Razorblade]

A score system wouldn't really be satisfying in CK3 in the same way it is in Stellaris.

Start as the Byzantines in CK3, and you have already won the score victory against all other empires. Then marry into and inherit the Holy Roman Empire, and you have now won the score victory against any real-life medieval ruler.

Stellaris' system works because everyone starts on the same footing, or in the case of Advanced and Fallen Empires, ahead of you. Power increases roughly linearly throughout the game, so just barely eliminating the Fallen Empires and inching ahead in score of an enemy federation in the last few years of the game is a satisfying conclusion.

It's not a feature that would hurt to add to CK3, don't get me wrong, but it's not a feature that's going to significantly improve the game. It took no extra effort to become history's greatest dynasty when the feature existed in CK2, and it won't in CK3 either.